View Single Post
  #12  
Old 16/06/2010, 02:28 PM
goldgoldgold's Avatar
goldgoldgold goldgoldgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 50
Default

I was thinking about that too.
I dont think the supervisor means to criticise, it's just the way the cognitives are laid out when the supervisor uses them the supervisee's strengths just cant match up to them. So basically the supervisor is constantly engaging with the supervisee's weakness.
I'm tryna think of an analogy...
YEAH say there's an object doing very impressive things... say... a computer! And a computer can do calculations send messages across the world etc. But the supervisor cares for the aesthetics instead of the pure functions of the computer. So despite the fact the computer is doing very impressive things the supervisor is concerned and is best at aesthetics, so the computer will always be judged, by the supervisor, by it's aesthetics, and not whether it is performing to it's best potential, regardless of the fact the aesthetics aren't it's natural strengths, and it is doing impressive things with the things that are it's strengths...
So there's two different perspectives, and they clash in such a way.
Does that make sense? Is that right?
__________________
i am merely an ocean of ideas for other people to swim in!
Reply With Quote